Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
-
thequigley

- Posts: 122
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:43 am
Post
by thequigley » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:49 pm
BillPackets wrote:thequigley wrote:Bill i like to make you think i dont care.
the psychology of quiggers is a weird 1 idk y u would want to make me think u dont care
inb4 u say something like 'well Bill obviously you care that I wasn't responding'
Bill. Let me tell ya, old friend. We will crush this test. OTHERWISE YOU DONT WANT IT BAD ENOUGH...YOU JUS KINDA WANT IT. WHEN YOU WANT A SCORE MORE THAN YOU WANNA BREATHE, THATS WHEN YOULL BE SUCCESSFUL.
the flawed logic in this is most similar to?
-
Colonel_funkadunk

- Posts: 3248
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm
Post
by Colonel_funkadunk » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:50 pm
thequigley wrote:BillPackets wrote:thequigley wrote:Bill i like to make you think i dont care.
the psychology of quiggers is a weird 1 idk y u would want to make me think u dont care
inb4 u say something like 'well Bill obviously you care that I wasn't responding'
Bill. Let me tell ya, old friend. We will crush this test. OTHERWISE YOU DONT WANT IT BAD ENOUGH...YOU JUS KINDA WANT IT. WHEN YOU WANT A SCORE MORE THAN YOU WANNA BREATHE, THATS WHEN YOULL BE SUCCESSFUL.
the flawed logic in this is most similar to?
Sup quigz
-
Hand

- Posts: 3843
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 11:33 am
Post
by Hand » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:51 pm
anybody got some fake scores to report now that the quigz is here?
-
BillPackets

- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm
Post
by BillPackets » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:52 pm
thequigley wrote:Bill. Let me tell ya, old friend. We will crush this test. OTHERWISE YOU DONT WANT IT BAD ENOUGH...YOU JUS KINDA WANT IT. WHEN YOU WANT A SCORE MORE THAN YOU WANNA BREATHE, THATS WHEN YOULL BE SUCCESSFUL.
the flawed logic in this is most similar to?
thequigley wrote:You, sir, are an idiot!

-
thequigley

- Posts: 122
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:43 am
Post
by thequigley » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:53 pm
Colonel_funkadunk wrote:thequigley wrote:BillPackets wrote:thequigley wrote:Bill i like to make you think i dont care.
the psychology of quiggers is a weird 1 idk y u would want to make me think u dont care
inb4 u say something like 'well Bill obviously you care that I wasn't responding'
Bill. Let me tell ya, old friend. We will crush this test. OTHERWISE YOU DONT WANT IT BAD ENOUGH...YOU JUS KINDA WANT IT. WHEN YOU WANT A SCORE MORE THAN YOU WANNA BREATHE, THATS WHEN YOULL BE SUCCESSFUL.
the flawed logic in this is most similar to?
Sup quigz
Keeping it real, colonel. you? ready to crush?
-
hetookmetoamovie

- Posts: 620
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:03 am
Post
by hetookmetoamovie » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:54 pm
hereisonehand wrote:anybody got some fake scores to report now that the quigz is here?

-
ErgoSum

- Posts: 427
- Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:35 pm
Post
by ErgoSum » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:54 pm
Took PT73 today.
RC: -0
LG: - (-2)
LR1: -0
LR2: -1
LR3: -1
Don't know which was the experimental, but I'm pretty happy with my score. I think I'll be ok for Saturday if I am floating around this score +/-5
-
hetookmetoamovie

- Posts: 620
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:03 am
Post
by hetookmetoamovie » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:55 pm
ErgoSum wrote:Took PT73 today.
RC: -0
LG: - (-2)
LR1: -0
LR2: -1
LR3: -1
Don't know which was the experimental, but I'm pretty happy with my score. I think I'll be ok for Saturday if I am floating around this score +/-5
180
(more apropos than usual)
-
BillPackets

- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm
Post
by BillPackets » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:56 pm
manillabay wrote:Almost done finishing drilling all LR by type. I am doing a lot better than I was when I started out. I'm anticipating May 10th to see if my hard work will actually result in a better score.
quigz real talk r u manilla bay
-
thequigley

- Posts: 122
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:43 am
Post
by thequigley » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:58 pm
BillPackets wrote:manillabay wrote:Almost done finishing drilling all LR by type. I am doing a lot better than I was when I started out. I'm anticipating May 10th to see if my hard work will actually result in a better score.
quigz real talk r u manilla bay
are you black tom brady?
-
Hand

- Posts: 3843
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 11:33 am
Post
by Hand » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:58 pm
ErgoSum wrote:Took PT73 today.
RC: -0
LG: - (-2)
LR1: -0
LR2: -1
LR3: -1
Don't know which was the experimental, but I'm pretty happy with my score. I think I'll be ok for Saturday if I am floating around this score +/-5
not bad should be a 179 shoe-in for you Ergo, but how did you miss 2 on LG? don't you know its the #mostlearnablesection? should've done a lil more drillin for that 180
-
BillPackets

- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm
Post
by BillPackets » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:01 pm
ErgoSum wrote:Took PT73 today.
RC: -0
LG: - (-2)
LR1: -0
LR2: -1
LR3: -1
Don't know which was the experimental, but I'm pretty happy with my score. I think I'll be ok for Saturday if I am floating around this score +/-5
way2goergo
-
ErgoSum

- Posts: 427
- Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:35 pm
Post
by ErgoSum » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:01 pm
hereisonehand wrote:ErgoSum wrote:Took PT73 today.
RC: -0
LG: - (-2)
LR1: -0
LR2: -1
LR3: -1
Don't know which was the experimental, but I'm pretty happy with my score. I think I'll be ok for Saturday if I am floating around this score +/-5
not bad should be a 179 shoe-in for you Ergo, but how did you miss 2 on LG? don't you know its the #mostlearnablesection? should've done a lil more drillin for that 180
The thing is I ended up getting two more correct than was allowed, so somehow there is a point where you learn a section so much it becomes a detriment
-
Hand

- Posts: 3843
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 11:33 am
Post
by Hand » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:05 pm
ErgoSum wrote:hereisonehand wrote:ErgoSum wrote:Took PT73 today.
RC: -0
LG: - (-2)
LR1: -0
LR2: -1
LR3: -1
Don't know which was the experimental, but I'm pretty happy with my score. I think I'll be ok for Saturday if I am floating around this score +/-5
not bad should be a 179 shoe-in for you Ergo, but how did you miss 2 on LG? don't you know its the #mostlearnablesection? should've done a lil more drillin for that 180
The thing is I ended up getting two more correct than was allowed, so somehow there is a point where you learn a section so much it becomes a detriment
damn you overdrilled that MF
hope you can undo some of that damage before saturday
-
Colonel_funkadunk

- Posts: 3248
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm
Post
by Colonel_funkadunk » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:07 pm
thequigley wrote:thequigley wrote:BillPackets wrote:thequigley wrote:Bill i like to make you think i dont care.
the psychology of quiggers is a weird 1 idk y u would want to make me think u dont care
inb4 u say something like 'well Bill obviously you care that I wasn't responding'
Bill. Let me tell ya, old friend. We will crush this test. OTHERWISE YOU DONT WANT IT BAD ENOUGH...YOU JUS KINDA WANT IT. WHEN YOU WANT A SCORE MORE THAN YOU WANNA BREATHE, THATS WHEN YOULL BE SUCCESSFUL.
the flawed logic in this is most similar to?
Keeping it real, colonel. you? ready to crush?
ALWAYS READY 2 SMASH
-
Colonel_funkadunk

- Posts: 3248
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm
Post
by Colonel_funkadunk » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:08 pm
ErgoSum wrote:Took PT73 today.
RC: -0
LG: - (-2)
LR1: -0
LR2: -1
LR3: -1
Don't know which was the experimental, but I'm pretty happy with my score. I think I'll be ok for Saturday if I am floating around this score +/-5
You are very necessary ITT
-
ErgoSum

- Posts: 427
- Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:35 pm
Post
by ErgoSum » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:15 pm
Colonel_funkadunk wrote:ErgoSum wrote:
You are very necessary ITT

-
ilikebaseball

- Posts: 4102
- Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:04 am
Post
by ilikebaseball » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:21 pm
for anyone that's done Cambridge's "most difficult passages" for RC, do you personally think that those passages are harder than the passages from 65 til now? I think it only covers the most difficult ones from 1-40 (they're still really hard, but just want a general consensus)
-
BillPackets

- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm
Post
by BillPackets » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:24 pm
ilikebaseball wrote:for anyone that's done Cambridge's "most difficult passages" for RC, do you personally think that those passages are harder than the passages from 65 til now? I think it only covers the most difficult ones from 1-40 (they're still really hard, but just want a general consensus)
kinda hard 2 tell cuz i think sum of the most difficult passages r comparative reading which obvs r not covered in the 1-40 packets but overall idk they're prolly similar
-
Gray

- Posts: 7003
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm
Post
by Gray » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 pm
.
-
BillPackets

- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm
Post
by BillPackets » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:43 pm
smccgrey wrote:BillPackets wrote:ilikebaseball wrote:for anyone that's done Cambridge's "most difficult passages" for RC, do you personally think that those passages are harder than the passages from 65 til now? I think it only covers the most difficult ones from 1-40 (they're still really hard, but just want a general consensus)
kinda hard 2 tell cuz i think sum of the most difficult passages r comparative reading which obvs r not covered in the 1-40 packets but overall idk they're prolly similar
I also think difficulty is relative. Sfogs might like the Kate Chopin passage, and I might like the one about Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease because of what we have studied, but for others they might be dull and awful.
thats pretty credited but i think sum might b valuable 4 u at this point for example i think the passage about blackmail (i know sum1 ITT can cite the PT its from without looking) is a really really great passage to practice (if u have done it and think/thought it was easy tell ol' bill to shut up) bc IMHO it shows how sum RC passages revolve around u picking up just one idea in the text bc like 3 of the 5 Qs from that passage all test the same idea
-
ErgoSum

- Posts: 427
- Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:35 pm
Post
by ErgoSum » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:44 pm
BillPackets wrote:smccgrey wrote:BillPackets wrote:ilikebaseball wrote:for anyone that's done Cambridge's "most difficult passages" for RC, do you personally think that those passages are harder than the passages from 65 til now? I think it only covers the most difficult ones from 1-40 (they're still really hard, but just want a general consensus)
kinda hard 2 tell cuz i think sum of the most difficult passages r comparative reading which obvs r not covered in the 1-40 packets but overall idk they're prolly similar
I also think difficulty is relative. Sfogs might like the Kate Chopin passage, and I might like the one about Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease because of what we have studied, but for others they might be dull and awful.
thats pretty credited but i think sum might b valuable 4 u at this point for example i think the passage about blackmail (i know sum1 ITT can cite the PT its from without looking) is a really really great passage to practice (if u have done it and think/thought it was easy tell ol' bill to shut up) bc IMHO it shows how sum RC passages revolve around u picking up just one idea in the text bc like 3 of the 5 Qs from that passage all test the same idea
PT 65?
-
BillPackets

- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm
Post
by BillPackets » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:45 pm
ErgoSum wrote:BillPackets wrote:
thats pretty credited but i think sum might b valuable 4 u at this point for example i think the passage about blackmail (i know sum1 ITT can cite the PT its from without looking) is a really really great passage to practice (if u have done it and think/thought it was easy tell ol' bill to shut up) bc IMHO it shows how sum RC passages revolve around u picking up just one idea in the text bc like 3 of the 5 Qs from that passage all test the same idea
PT 65?
i thot it was 65 but didnt want to mis-cite at the risk of lookin like a dummy this close to test time but i think it is 65 too
-
Colonel_funkadunk

- Posts: 3248
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm
Post
by Colonel_funkadunk » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:46 pm
BillPackets wrote:ErgoSum wrote:BillPackets wrote:
thats pretty credited but i think sum might b valuable 4 u at this point for example i think the passage about blackmail (i know sum1 ITT can cite the PT its from without looking) is a really really great passage to practice (if u have done it and think/thought it was easy tell ol' bill to shut up) bc IMHO it shows how sum RC passages revolve around u picking up just one idea in the text bc like 3 of the 5 Qs from that passage all test the same idea
PT 65?
i thot it was 65 but didnt want to mis-cite at the risk of lookin like a dummy this close to test time but i think it is 65 too
Yea its 65
-
BillPackets

- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm
Post
by BillPackets » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:52 pm
Colonel_funkadunk wrote:BillPackets wrote:ErgoSum wrote:BillPackets wrote:
thats pretty credited but i think sum might b valuable 4 u at this point for example i think the passage about blackmail (i know sum1 ITT can cite the PT its from without looking) is a really really great passage to practice (if u have done it and think/thought it was easy tell ol' bill to shut up) bc IMHO it shows how sum RC passages revolve around u picking up just one idea in the text bc like 3 of the 5 Qs from that passage all test the same idea
PT 65?
i thot it was 65 but didnt want to mis-cite at the risk of lookin like a dummy this close to test time but i think it is 65 too
Yea its 65
ok every1 its confirmed blackmail passage is from 65